Replies

"In this one, the clear choice in terms of US interests is India. It's a no brainer." Why do you say that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but just want to know your reason for comparing India to France and Pakistan to (Nazi)Germany. There clearly have been attacks on Indian assets coming out of Pakistan, but the government there claims the attacks come from terrorists that it can't effectively control. Maybe they are telling the truth, and India's crushing the Pakistani government's power would just leave those terrorists even more unrestrained than they are now. Or maybe there's real proof that the Pakistani government is fully involved in the attacks.

I'm generally not a fan of Islamic governments and their demands and grievances, but, as I understand it, the deal at partition was that the majority religious affiliation in a region would determine whether that region became part of Pakistan or remained Indian. Kashmir has a majority muslim population, but a Hindu royal family. India broke its own principle and sided with the royals. If all that is so, then India is in the wrong.

Pakistan, as the number one client state of the PRC, and the lynch pin of the Trans-Asian Axis, as described in numerous papers by Bodansky, rhetoric post-9/11 notwithstanding, are not doing things in the overall best ineterst of the US and the West. Even today as we write, in spite of what is actually a minor, tokin level of support for our troops and ops, the Pakistanis and the PRC proceed on the construction of a large, joint deployment naval port at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. The ISI continue to actively undermine the War on Terror. Pakistani advisors have been working with the PLA in setting up Naval bases and SIGINT facilities in Myanmar. None of this has changed since 9/11. Rhetoric vs. actions. Now do you see where I am coming from?